[osis-core] osisID

[Patrick Durusau]

Troy,

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> I'm sick and groggy and frustrated with the quantity of osis-core 
> email that I have not read.  I'm thoroughly confused about many 
> matters that I once had solid in my head.  So as not to add enormously 
> to the required reading of everyone on the list, I'll post a few 
> scattered (scatterbrained) comments in this single email, below.

Sorry about the confusion as we should have used more restraint in terms 
of how we discussed the current, past and proposed options.

>
>
> Could someone please give me pros as for what osisID is intended?
>
> My understanding is that it IS the mechanism to mark anchors in a text 
> to which references may point.  It marks the main reference targets in 
> a doc.

>
> Am I incorrect?

No, but that is only part of the story.

An osisID is the identifier given to an element in the document to 
identify that element. Being the anchor, as for a pointer, is a very 
valuable function but only one of the roles an osisID can play. Another 
is to be a marker (sort of an anchor) if I say I want to print all of 
Matthew Chapter 5, I have to have someway of getting all of its contents.

The osisRef that points inside an OSIS document would be pointing to 
osisIDs but it can also point elsewhere. The materials it points to may 
or may not be reachable on the WWW or your local machine, but having a 
standard pointer to them makes it possible for software to tell you: Go 
see 1QIsa(a) for a particular comment but display it in some more 
meaningful way.

The bone Todd and I have been worrying back and forth over Work, 
refSystem, etc. amounts to this:

When I say Troy, go read John 1:1, you don't have to ask me what I 
meant. You assume that any Bible is going to have a John 1:1 and it will 
be the passage I meant for you to read. That is because most (but not 
all) Bibles share a reference system.

If I were to say, Troy, I like the translation of John 1:1 in the NASB, 
you could still find John 1:1 in any other Bible, but you would know 
that I wanted you to read that passage in a particular translation or 
what we have confusingly call work/edition, etc.

The current question is how to represent most clearly for users, the 
difference between writing John.1.1, meaning any translation of John 1:1 
and writing Bible.KJV[Bible.NASB]:John.1.1 (where Bible.KJV indicates a 
default reference system and Bible.NASB indicates a particular translation)

In Todd's latest proposal, he wants a default reference system so you 
can always write John.1.1, but if you want a particular translation, you 
must write, John.1.1[Bible.NASB]

As I said, part of the problem is that internally we have used 
inconsistent terminology or at least used consistent terminology 
inconsistently, take your choice.

>
> some examples from previous posts (ignore the syntax), that seem to 
> imply an osisID counterpart.
>
> <reference 
> osisRef="augustine.confessions.pusey.1880(augustine.confessions.SPCK1912):X.iii.20"> 
>
>
> <reference work="Bible.KJV"> osisRef="Bible.KJV:Gen.1.1">
>
> <reference osisRef="lxx_en(Bible.KJV):Psalm.20">
>
>
> OK, second question.  Assuming that I am correct.  Please have a look 
> at the module list here:
>
> http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModDisp.jsp?modType=Commentaries
>
> All of these commentaries are reference works aligned with Biblical 
> texts.  ie.  If I want to know what Matthew Henry thinks about James 
> 1:19, I would go to the "James 1:19" entry in the MHC document.
>
> How do you intend for me to encode and reference these commentaries?
>
> Just like:
> <reference 
> osisRef="augustine.confessions.pusey.1880(augustine.confessions.SPCK1912):X.iii.20"> 
>
>
> points to a significant division of this document, so also, I would 
> like to do the same with these commentaries.
>
> What would THEIR osisID be?

I grabbed the Treasury of David but what is a .czz file?

Just as a suggestion, I would have Spurgeon.Treasury_of_David: followed 
by whatever divisions he follows. Assuming his references inside are not 
specific, that is to a particular edition of the Bible, I would have 
osisRefs of the form: 1Kgs.1.1 for his references to the Bible text. 
(you might want to have a more specific reference for the work by 
edition, etc.)

>
> I have suggested <div osisID="Jas.1.19 Jas.1.20 Jas.1.21">commentary 
> text for <reference osisRef="Bible.KJV:Jas.1.19-Jas.1.21">James 
> 1:19-21</reference></div>
>
> I understand that the purpose of these commentaries is to comment or 
> reference the Bible, BUT these are the divisions in these types of 
> commentaries.  It makes sense to me to allow osisRef's to them, like 
> any other doc that we're marking up.

Yes, and although we have mainly used only Bible references in our 
examples, a commentary would have its own set of divisions.

Oh, you mean these are the contents of the chapters. Ah, now I see the 
problem. Off the top of my head I would give them an osisID of 
Spurgeon.Treasury_of_David:Chapter1.Section1 followed by an 
osisRef="1Kgs.1.1-1Kgs.1.10" to indicate what the content of the chapter.


>
> _*NOTE*_  I am *NOT* suggesting that the <reference> child annote 
> anything regarding its parent <div>; only, possibly, logically to a 
> human.  I would expect all Bible references IN THE TEXT to be marked 
> with <reference> tags, so as to allow software to know that they can 
> create hotlinks if desired, or whatever.
>
>
> SO, if this is given, I'm not sure exactly what I think about:
>
> <reference osisRef="MHC:Jas.1.20">James 1:20</reference>
>
> What is MHC?  I guess I'm thinking that a work:osisID would be fine, 
> WITHOUT any kind of reference system.  If it was marked up such, it 
> would mean: "Go to this specific work and find the matching osisID". 
> It's fairly simple, I think.  Am I missing something?

For a work with a single reference system no, you are not missing 
anything. The harder case is only a problem with classic works that have 
multiple reference systems.

I think it is necessary to keep the ideas of a work and the reference 
system distinct so we can deal with the cases that have multiple 
reference systems. For the case of MHC, it is a distinction that makes 
no difference and that is what has lead to some of the confusion on the 
issue.

>
> 1 Problem I can see:
> If the work DID choose to state that it used multiple osisID reference 
> schemes to internally label itself, then it's default scheme would be 
> used.???

Todd has suggested that we declare a default refernce system on osisText.

If this does not help, would it be better for me to call? About a week 
ago I got so tired that I could not understand some of the posts and 
took most of a day to just sleep and come back to it.

Patrick

>
> Thoughts about all these ideas?


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu